Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manohar Lal Chaurasia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2024
1 WP-14366-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 30 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14366 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MANOHAR LAL CHAURASIA S/O HEERALAL
CHAURASIA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED ASSISTANT GRADE 2 OFFICE OF COLECTOR
CHHATARPUR RESIDENCE IN FRONT OF PEPTECH
TOWN KALYANI NAGAR NOWGONG ROAD
CHHATARPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR CHAURASIA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENU DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER 220,
RAJASWA BHAWAN ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR CHHATARPUR CHHATARPUR
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER CHHATARPUR
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI C.M. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
The issue in the present petition is with regard to entitlement of annual
2 WP-14366-2024
increment to the employee on the event of retirement.
This issue has been earlier considered in the case of T h e Director
(Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others
(Civil Appeal No.4349/2023), reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 401
wherein the Supreme Court has held thus :-
"21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant
one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day
of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of
retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement
with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs."
The same has been relied upon in the case of Madhya Pradesh Power
Transmission Com. Ltd. and another vs. S.R. Ramchandran and others
(SLP (C) No.8219/2020) and the Supreme Court has held thus :-
"Mr. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf
o f the appellant's seeks to distinguish this authority by pointing out that
Regulation 40(1) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service
Regulations, 1997 is different from Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,2008 as
also Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh (Pay Revision) Rules, 2009 and Rule 10 of
Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2008.
We have gone through these rules and in our opinion, though these
Rules are differently phrased, they have the same import, on the strength of
which the Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed the petition of the employer. In
these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in
3 WP-14366-2024
this set of petitions and these petitions shall stand dismissed."
Considering the aforesaid and taking note of the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) and S.R.
Ramchandran (supra), this petition is allowed, directing the respondents to
grant the benefit of annual increment which was to be added with effect from
01.07.2023 and recalculate the benefit of retiral dues and pension and issue
fresh PPO in favour of the petitioner who was retired on 30.06.2023 within a
period of three months from the date of submitting copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
shahina
